Talk:Self-realization

Intro section replicates a different site

Much of this section is essentially a copy of the page found here. There is no specific copyright elements reserved, but there is no indication that the site is under GDFL or other license. Has permission been granted to copy? --Nemonoman 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted... no new content as compared to Self-Realisation article. Sfacets 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should still be mostly deleted, seems like spam for a few minor groups. --Simon D M (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jnana is a major term in tibetan buddhism. Give me some time to rewrite this to include that aspect. i've just started to collect citations for use. but it's such a major term in buddhism, long term there will definitely need to be an article about it. minus the spam links... - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, what's going on. this talk page is for a redirect to jnana. how are people getting here? discussion should be moved to Talk:Jnana - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

oh sorry, didn't realize that you just redirected as a way of deleting the page. and i was referring to the resulting redirect content. got confused. shouldn't this enter the standard AfD process instead? Or you're making an argument for speedy deletion (by redirect)? - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT spam and not copied from any books or websites. I might be unaware about editing in Wikipedia. Expert editors can edit this article as per Wikipedia standards as it is very important aspect of human consciousness. J Krishnamurti had spent his entire life to explain what is Self and how to realise it. But due to conditioning of human consciousness, he was not able to explain his own teachings. Whatever written in this article is sheet facts about human experience, editors should tally with his own way of experiencing life. Vitthal Sawant (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

sheet should be read as sheer Vitthal Sawant (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater to original research. See WP:FORUM.

Krishnamurti's writing are not WP:RS, and even if we admit that they were, it is not your task to "improve" RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging or Deleting

I suggest we move subsections to their respective main articles. Then either turn this article into only a disambiguation page, similar to the enlightenment article or then delete it. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Been one week so far, anyone have an opinion on this? If not in another week or so I'll just make the changes. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Last chance, anyone care at all about this article? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be made into an article someday, but now it's just a collection of 'According to's. I think you're on the right track - merge, dab, and leave the first sentence. The term is notable enough to not delete the page entirely, imo, and has different connotation from similar terms like enlightenment. I saw your note at Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda - the content (one quote) from here is already in that article. ~ priyanath talk 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for adding your input on this. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the content can go to the respective pages, maybe to the talk pages for people to add in if they see fit. The Sahaja Yoga section doesn't add anything to the main article so I'll delete it now. I'll delete the Yogananda material as well if it is duplicated. I previously redirected the page, because the only meat on this page is also on the jnana page. This page would be worth keeping if there was other content related to 'self realisation' but not necessarily jnana, and I expect it would be mainly modern, although, in philosophical circles, the term was used as far back as 1874 according to OED online:

"1874 W. WALLACE Logic of Hegel xxi. p. clx, This process..may be called self-realisation (or development). 1876 F. H. BRADLEY Eth. Studies ii. 59 What remains is to point out the most general expression for the end in itself, the ultimate practical ‘why’; and that we find in the word self-realization. Ibid. 75 There is self-realization in all action. 1907 ILLINGWORTH Doctr. Trin. xii. 245 This realisation for which the Christian looks, while it is the realization of himself, is not self-realisation. For..it is not in the last resort his own achievement, but the gift of God." --Simon D M (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All the pages you have provided have nothing to do with the concept of self realization... groups especially have their own version of self realization, which is in absolute contrast to what is stated in this page, for example, in case of Sahaja Yoga their self realization is achieved when they feel cool breeze, in their head... merger will create more and more confusion. --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, each group has their own view of the term self-realization. Therefore, I'm proposing we move each traditions view of the term into their respective articles instead of trying to provide a comprehensive survey here. Right now it's not comprehensive and therefore not neutral. Later if someone really has the ability and inclination to research a neutral comparison of the use across all traditions that's still possible later- Owlmonkey (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many translations of the Gita include the term 'self-realisation',[1][2][3] so it is certainly a widely used, notable term with more universal (non-sectarian) use. ~ priyanath talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we keep the article as a disambiguation - because it does have wide usage at least in some traditions - and have it link to the traditions that use it instead of trying to create a list of usages here. Just a list adds no value, and takes the views out of the context of their tradition. Better that the topic is discussed within the context of each tradition's main article. This is similar to the enlightenment article, a term similar to this one. If there was a scholarly body of work comparing and contrasting the use of this term across multiple traditions then this article could add value by going into those comparisons. I don't know of any work like that though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the enlightenment model works best here, until someone writes (with reliable sources) a general article on self-realization as a term, it's evolution, and the comparisons you mention. ~ priyanath talk 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Change

OK, how about the following as a disambiguation page for this article then:

Self-realization may refer to:

• A translation of the Sanskrit term Atma Jnana, alternatively rendered "knowledge of the soul", and used in various spiritual teachings:
  • In the Dada Bhagwan tradition
  • In the Paramhansa Yogananda tradition
  • In the Sahaja Yoga religious movement
  • In the Surat Shabd Yoga tradition
• A way to describe approaches in psychology
  • Psychosynthesis
• See Also
  • Moksha
  • Mysticism
  • Nondualism

Comments? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga is a new religious movement rather than a tradition. You might want to link to Psychosynthesis that also uses the term and to Self-actualization which has a similar meaning. I still think the list is somewhat arbitrary. There are also a number of redirects like Self-Realization, Self-realisation, etc to deal with. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Excellent additional links. Perhaps Psychosynthesis could begin a new subsection like As a way to describe approaches in psychology or do you think that is too narrow? - Owlmonkey (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most eastern teachings use the term with the traditional meaning which I've referenced above - realization or knowledge of the soul. The more psychological 'self-actualization' or 'psychosynthesis' are significantly different, and are western derivatives with a different meaning. I suggest changing the heading 'As a way to describe.....' to the more accurate "Self-Realization according to various teachings". It's more neutral, and covers a wide range of everything from 'traditions' to 'religions' to 'new religious movements'. A simple disambiguation page doesn't need to get into defining whether something is a religion, sect, tradition, heresy, etc. The list simply needs to include notable teachings that have 'self-realization' as a notable aspect of their teaching. ~ priyanath talk 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not tied to the As a way to describe enlightenment or spiritual attainment: text but it's an attempt to complete the lead sentence Self-realization may refer to: and contrast it from the first bullet A translation of.... Is there a way we could reword according to various teachings so that it completes the sentence Self-realization may refer to...? I think that's where the a way to describe came from for me; a syntactic need to categorize the usage. How about A term used in spirituality? - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, you're right. I've taken another stab at it, because the various traditions in that first list use 'self-realization' in the sense of ātmajñāna, whereas psychology uses it in a somewhat different sense. So I've made those traditions a subset of the sanskrit definition. I'll be away for a couple of days, but I think this is on the right track and you know what you're doing. If you want to tweak it some more and then go live with it, please do.

An additional minor note: the first sentence says 'a translation of the Sanskrit term Atma Jnana', but the wikilinks go to two different Sanskrit terms, 'Atma' and 'Jnana'. I think it would be more accurate to say 'a translation of the Sanskrit term ātmajñāna' with no wikilink(s), and have Atma and Jnana under 'See Also'. Monier-Williams is definite that the term is ātmajñāna, all one word. ~ priyanath talk 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing 2 words or 1 is just a matter of style, when writing sanskrit words are always run together. I agree that the 'self-realization' of Pscychosynthesis is not atmajnana, but I would say that these 2 streams of use probably overlap in many new age uses. The variation probably just comes from the varying understandings of 'self'. Even where self-realization does mean atmajnana, there is a wide variety in interpretation. For the Sahaja Yogis simply feeling a cool sensation in one's hand is taken to be Self-Realization. For them and the Radha Soamis and the Dada Bhagwan people, Self-Realization is just a step on the way to final release, while for others it is final release. --Simon D M (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on rendering it one word or two, but if it were rendered as one I would expect a separate article for that singular term. It seems the Jnana article is currently attempting to encompass the usage though it doesn't explain how atman figures into it that well. It could use some help there. My preference then would be two terms so each article and related meaning is linked to. So then it more matches the wikipedia structure than the original sanskrit perhaps but is better wikilinked. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Vedanta, atmajnana and jnana are usually synonymous, I'd just link there. If the jnana article ever had subsections, I guess it should point to the relevant subsection. I think there's also an issue of undue weight with the inclusion of Dada Bhagwan, the WP article doesn't have any sources other than the self-published promotional material. --Simon D M (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the sects to weigh them really, but it sounds like you're saying that the article is currently questionable. I'm fine not linking to it unless others object. I think we can use consensus to decide on individual links. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an RS on Dada Bhagwan and added it to the talk page, so maybe it is notable enough to include. There's still an issue with undue weight and the groups included though. Perhaps we can just hope that it will be fixed with time. --Simon D M (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, going ahead with the change now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really happy with the way it's turned out. Thank you all for your ideas, contributions and support. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

If this is to be a dab page and not an article, I'd suggest streamlining it further (dab pages are navigational aids, not destinations):

Self-realization may refer to:

• Atman jnana, the Hindu concept that knowledge that one's self is identical with Brahman
• Psychosynthesis, an original approach to psychology that was developed by Roberto Assagioli

See Also

• Moksha
• Mysticism
• Nondualism
• Self-actualization

{{disambig}}

For a fuller treatment here of its use in different articles, I'd remove the disambig tag and make this a list article. As an aside, I noted that Self-realisation redirects here, while Self Realisation, Self Realization, Self-Realization, and Selfrealisation redirect to Jnana. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs help if it's gonna stay.

I tried to make it neutral-er, but it's really difficult because of the lack of real information here. I suggest deleting this article, because right now, it serves no purpose. 99.55.104.30 (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

who the hell is adding idiotic hindu propaganda on this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.179.171 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Almost the entire section "Qualities of self-realized people" is incorrect information. Maslow has nothing to do with self-realization. Maslow's concept was self-actualization, (which Wikipedia already has an article on,) and the source that is cited also confirms that Maslow's concept was self-actualization, not self-realization. Self-realization isn't even mentioned in that article. The section that starts with "According to Maslow..." and ends with "...self-determining" should be deleted since it is providing false information.Kevthefrog (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I m oved the section to the article on Maslov, and provided some more structure to the article, leaving possibilities for expanding it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article is:

1. Messy in its format
2. One-sided in its emphasis on Eastern religion, especially Hinduism
3. Largely overlapping the very similar area Self-actualization

I therefore propose this article be merged into the already well-established one, by adding a substantial section on Hindu and other religious conceptions of self-realization to Self-actualization. HGilbert (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

these are reasons to do something about this article not a basis for a merge. They are basically different topics and this would be a very forced and unnatural merge. Because of that and no comment action in nearly a year, I'm removing the tags. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This article could use some reworking. I think that if the information was more thoroughly researched and cited, it would make this article more credible. There are other articles that may benefit from being merged with this information, but I do think that it is a good start. Psychology Says (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Vardankar

User:Oplagreek has twice added this information on Vardankar:

Modern spiritual teachings like VARDANKAR teach that self-realization is "a state of consciousness and experience that takes place [out of body] on the Soul Plane" and that no one can reach this without a secret technique called "soul projection."

References

This is not about "spiritual teachings" (plural), but only about Vardankar, a split-off from Eckankar. If anything is to be mentioned about, it should be about this Eckankar-sect. But even that would be WP:UNDUE, given the information at Shabda, where it is stated that Vandankar is only one of many sects which adhere to the concept of shabda. The Eckankar-page links to Contemporary Sant Mat movements; that, and Sant Mat, may be a relevant level of information. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan There's no issue here, as it's relevant information for Self-realization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplagreek (talk • contribs) 17 january 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how it is relevant, and why VARDANKAR is relevant. In addition to WP:UNDUE regarding VARDANKAR itself, the sentence above is also non-informative: "a state of consciousness and experience that takes place [out of body] on the Soul Plane" is incomprehensible without additional information. The sentence also gives no clue whatsoever what "soul projection" is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This information might be relevant for an article on Vardankar, should you choose to write one (but not here). Ensure that you use third-party, WP:Reliable sources if you do! Clean Copy^talk 19:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism by User: Joshua Jonathan

It's not conventional information which is why it's in a secondary category, and it is properly sourced. Stop your vandalism. Oplagreek (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oplagreek: be very carefull what you call WP:VANDALISM. Such accusations, combined with unexplained reversals and a refusal to engage in talkpage-discussions, is highly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The term vandalism is reserved for the intentional disruption of pages. Content disputes are just that, and are very common; they should be politely discussed and appropriately resolved on the talk page. @Oplagreek:: please read the WP:assume good faith policy. Clean Copy^talk 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)